EPT[D] Competitive 2v2 maps. - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
Here is my current WIP, I'm worried the 3rds may be a bit too easy + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IsjJF.jpg) | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Easy 3rd is a good thing  but I think that the 4th might be too hard to get, since it is so close to your opponents' 3rd. Gold bases will be REALLY hard to take, not better to make them reward you more? | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
Can you label the spawn points? I can't tell, out of the 4 bases in each corner, which ones are supposed to have players. It's completely asymmetrical, devoid of any pattern or apparent reason whatsoever. Not that that's an inherently negative quality, but it could do for a little explanation. ... -Highest ground bbases -Perfectly symmetrical Don't know what you're talking about. Is that level underlava or something? no @TehTemplar - Cool! the pocket expo is an interesting choice, and the natural with the backdoor is safe at first, but vulnerable to warp ins and seige tanks later on. It looks good to me - I'm trying to come up with contructive criticisms, but its hard since we are in pretty much in uncharted territory now. Thanks I am considering several changes currently. | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On May 12 2012 21:36 TehTemplar wrote: Hello, I created a 2v2 map last week. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AEYwB.jpg) I tried to make it pretty heavy macro style, please let me know what you think. Hmm, although it is better than the ladder pool, I still feel it's a bit too small. If you want a heavy macro map you should consider slower rush times (like over 185) and more 'safe' expansions for each team. Most 2v2 maps in the ladder pool have 4 blue and 1 gold per team (sometimes 5 blue and 1,5 gold per team). You map has 6 blue 1 gold per team, which is still not enough in my opinion. Also, while the middle seems very open, the fortress problem comes into play on each team's plateau (if you remember twillight fortress, it was a horrible map where lower bracket teams would turtle a lot, making for very long horribly boring matches). This should be avoided. On May 13 2012 03:33 TheFish7 wrote: @TehTemplar - Cool! the pocket expo is an interesting choice, and the natural with the backdoor is safe at first, but vulnerable to warp ins and seige tanks later on. It looks good to me - I'm trying to come up with contructive criticisms, but its hard since we are in pretty much in uncharted territory now. Here is my current WIP, I'm worried the 3rds may be a bit too easy + Show Spoiler + I like this map a lot, it has a good open middle and relatively many bases to safely take per team. Be sure to both publish your map and post about them when all aesthetics are done, and good luck with polishing them | ||
|
thezanursic
5479 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
|
Endrjuu
13 Posts
People maybe dont realise but 2v2 was really competitive @sc/bw pretty much all leagues had 1x or 2x 2v2 and a lot of ex korean progamers played it (iccup) etc and enjoyed it, in sc2 blizzard took it away ;/ Btw maps like fighting spirit and python were the most popular@ sc/bw so random starting positions sometimes cross sometimes one side, and simetrical would be the best (lots of different openings/tactics) | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
Hmm, although it is better than the ladder pool, I still feel it's a bit too small. If you want a heavy macro map you should consider slower rush times (like over 185) and more 'safe' expansions for each team. Most 2v2 maps in the ladder pool have 4 blue and 1 gold per team (sometimes 5 blue and 1,5 gold per team). You map has 6 blue 1 gold per team, which is still not enough in my opinion. There are no gold bases? But yeah, 6 blue. Also, while the middle seems very open, the fortress problem comes into play on each team's plateau (if you remember twillight fortress, it was a horrible map where lower bracket teams would turtle a lot, making for very long horribly boring matches). This should be avoided. Well, if you concentrate on the low ground protecting all 6 bases, you are so vulnerable to drops, nydus, etc. | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
2v2 map | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
As a 2v2 map I would put another base between the 2 mains, there seems to be a perfect place for it | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
balance in this game is designed for 1v1 big maps...so why are 2v2 maps too small and why hasn't blizz done a better job uupdating this map pool...cmon.. | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
Personally I think 2v2 maps don't need to be that much big... Most of 2v2 games are played between 10 and 15 minutes because of the strength of timing push. I did a small 2v2 map (160x160) because I like small 2v2 map. I also recognize that if 2v2 map are bigger and bases are connected, it will be easier to defend against team timing push. Finally, it depends if you are looking for fast games or long games EDIT: @moskonia I followed your tip about another base where you told me and I do like the result (looking). I will do some tests for gameplay... | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
 I might be wrong but if I am not, you might want to just make two versions of the map that look similar but has differences, one for 1v1, and the other for 2v2.I too don't think that 2v2 maps needs to be very large, but they do have to have easy expansions just like 2v2, maybe even easier, they do need to have a way that you can help your partner when he is attacked, and they do need to have a decent amount of expansions: 6 bases is pretty bad, 7 bases is decent and 8+ I think is good for the moment. About the golds, I think it would be better to rotate them, so it is a tiny bit easier to take one of them, since right now they are just so contested. P.S. if you still want to focus on the 1v1 part, I think making the 3rd into a 6m1hyg expansion might be interesting idea, and maybe, only maybe, make the 2 rocks at each of the sides 1 rock only (I am guessing in 1v1 all spawn locations are enabled?) | ||
|
PandaZerg
Canada148 Posts
2v2 - 1v1 Map New result The result is now better in both 1v1 and 2v2. I will have to do more tests. About 1v1, I know everyone will not be agree, but only far by air (no-cross) position are enable. Third of both players are near of each other, but thirds are separate by 2lines of rocks. It will be more easy to take a fourth with your tip (the new base I did) on each site in the middle. Check number down the main ramp of each base: 1v1: 1vs3 or 2vs4 2v2: 1&3 vs 2&4 I also think you are right. It's pretty pretty hard to have a good/balanced 1v1/2v2 map at the same time... Almost impossible. I did my best to reach this utopia  | ||
|
Demx
United States11 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i5tea.png) | ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
Still. there is no tell until some good map makers takes your idea and makes it a reality | ||
|
Demx
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
moskonia
Israel1448 Posts
| ||
| ||
